Gene Scarborough wrote:
For ET---I am a hunter and deadly shot. I do not want my guns restricted from me due to crazies using them for crazy. The problem, in my view, is military grade automatic weapons whose only purpose is to provide an arsinal to an individual.
The real problem is in towns and cities where drug gangs outgun the police. An Uzzie is hardly made for hunting and has no place in anyone's hands except the Military or Police.
What would you guys offer as a solution?
Gene...you're showing your age, dude....an Uzi??? That's soooo 1980-ish.
However, you are correct in your statement that the law-abiding should not have their rights and liberties determined by the lawless.
Also, automatic weapons, by which you probably mean full-auto, are highly regulated and it takes some serious effort and money to LEGALLY acquire the appropriate Class III firearms license to own ANY such weapons. I have zero concern for people who go through the bureaucratic rectal exam and months-long waiting period required to own them, but those are not the people in question.
With SWAT teams and such these days, there are few instances where gangs can outgun police. I really don't think that's an issue these days and never really was. More media hype than anything else.
Lastly, owning a firearm should have nothing to do with whether a firearm is suitable for hunting. Most handguns are not suitable, nor designed, for hunting, and the ones that are, well, the anti-gun folks get rather worked up over those due to their large caliber.But even without firearms, this guy could have found another way to create the destruction he sought if he had not had access to a firearm. The gun was just the delivery method for his anger. His lack of respect for human life has nothing to do with guns.
Tim Bonney wrote: Gene Scarborough wrote:
What would you guys offer as a solution?
My solution is outlaw handguns and anything that is too similar to an assault weapon. And don't allow automatic weapons of any kind with a clip that can allow someone to fire over and over and over again without having to reload. You don't need semi-automatic weapons or hand guns to go deer hunting. They are made for killing people.
Your "solution", Tim, comes with a mighty high price tag. When things go bump in the night, your handgun ban would leave us all largely defenseless to cower in the corner, fiddle with our phones, and subject everyone to the good graces of those who might do us harm. As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." No thank you. (For a number of reasons, hunting firearms do not make practical home defense weapons, although that's not to say they can't be implemented for such purposes.)
Besides the fact that semi-automatic deer rifles have been around for 70 something years and people do use handguns for deer hunting (check your state's deer hunting regulations...Tennessee allows handgun deer hunting), your statement on "automatic weapons of any kind with a clip that can allow someone to fire over and over and over" is more geared for an emotional argument than one based in the real-world. Walk into a Bass Pro or other outdoor shop looking for a deer rifle and you'll readily find ones out there that look like the M4 some G.I. in Iraq or Afghanistan used. It's probably camo instead of black and most likely will be available in a range of calibers and probably will come with a 5 round magazine instead of a 20 or 30, but in almost every other aspect it looks
like an "assualt weapon", even though it is not one. Remington offers two such examples (R15
) right along with their traditional semi-auto 750 and famous bolt action 700 rifles.
Then there's the issue of one person or group of persons becoming the arbiter of deciding what another person needs. Each of us could probably come up with a nice list of what we think others do not "need" and therefore could be regulated in some manner and we would think society better off if we could force everyone else to live within those limits.
But all of this is like taking issue with GM and Ford for 40,000 deaths a year from driving, with half of those being alcohol-related. Yet no one calls for restricting the law-abiding from possessing automobiles or alcohol.
I'm Ed Thompson, and I approve this message.